Twins Crumble

/0 Comments/in /by

In the Yankees’ three-game playoff sweep, the Yankees displayed superior starting pitching, relief pitching, power hitting, clutch hitting, defense, baserunning, bench and managing*. The Twins excelled in…nothing I can think of. How do you explain the one-sided nature of a series between two teams that finished only one game apart over the regular season?
First, their similarity of record was largely a chimera. The Twins amassed wins over weak Central Division teams, while the Yankees’ schedule largely consisted of the Rays, Red Sox, Blue Jays and Orioles. Based on head-to-head competition, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the Twins would have finished fifth in the Eastern Division this year.
Going down their lineups, one to nine, there wasn’t a Twin I would take over the corresponding Yankee. Yes, Mauer has a higher average than Texeira, but which would you consider more dangerous in a playoff game? Same for Delmon Young v. Alex Rodriguez.
Still, talent in baseball, unlike football, only counts for so much. The best Major League team will lose a third of its games, and the worst will win a third. So talent alone can’t explain the Twins have lost nine straight playoff games to the Yanks. For this, we have to look at intangibles. One, confidence is key in any sport. How can the Twins have it when they know they always lose to New York, not only in the playoffs, but in the regular season? Two, experience adds to that confidence. The Yankees are veterans who have been in pressure games so often before. Rivera, Pettite, Jeter, et al.? You know they won’t feel intimidated. Even newcomers like Lance Berkman and Curtis Granderson bring experience. Can we say the same about Brian Duensing, Jesse Crain, J.J. Hardy, Danny Valencia? Conversely, Jason Kubel does have playoff experience with the Twins, but his experience consists of hitting 2-for-29. Third, team makeup. The Twins are a solid, unspectacular team, built for the long haul of a 162-game season, not prone to beating themselves or going into prolonged slumps. Without Morneau, there is no one who can carry the team, like A-Rod or Texeira can. There is no dominant pitcher, like Halladay or Lincecum or Lee. They need several players to be hot at the same time.
Which leads us to Four, the final ingredient of momentum. If the Twins had ended the season on a hot streak, they might have carried more confidence, some mojo, into the playoffs. Instead, they sputtered the last two weeks of the season, playing by far their worst ball, losing eight out of ten. Every one of the starting pitchers had a bad outing. Mauer, their best player, was hurt, and never returned to form.
When Cuddyer opened the series with a two-run homer and Hudson scored another run on hustle, it seemed that the Twins might overcome both the immediate and the recent past and make a real run at the Yankees. But once the New Yorkers came back and eliminated this early lead, all spark and all hope seemed to drain from the Twins, from their fans, and from Yankee-haters around the country.

*while the other categories are supported by obvious statistics, the judgment of managing is more subjective. Using hindsight as my guide, however, I can’t help but criticize Gardenhire’s batting Kubel cleanup in Game 3, pitching Crain in relief in Game 1, leaving Liriano in to face Granderson in Game 1 and failing to be aggressive in the two games Span led off with a single. There was nothing illogical about any of his moves; it’s just that all his hunches proved wrong.

The Twins – Postseason and Beyond

/0 Comments/in , /by

After a surprisingly successful 94-win season in 2010, the Minnesota Twins will be facing their nemesis and mine, the New York Yankees, in the AL Division Series in two days. Just as sportswriters have to vote on player awards before the postseason begins, I should memorialize my thoughts on the state of the Twins as they conclude this campaign and transition into the future.

First, an admission of error. I pronounced in June that the Twins would go “as far as Justin Morneau takes them.” As it happened, Morneau, enjoying the best year of his career, suffered a concussion before the All-Star Game and never played again, yet the Twins played their best ball without him. On the other hand, I also identified Jon Rauch as, at best, a stopgap closer. The Twins apparently agreed, for they picked up Brian Fuentes and Matt Capps and relegated Rauch to 7th-inning duty.

Strengths and Weaknesses. The Twins’ strengths are 1) relief pitching, 2) depth of starting pitching, 3) team defense, and 4) a balanced offense. What they lack: 1) a #1 starter, 2) home run power, 3) speed, and 4) depth at catcher and in the outfield. Losing Joe Nathan for the year was a blow, but it spurred the Twins to add personnel that resulted in a stronger bullpen than if Nathan were still around. Randy Flores was a complete bust, and we need never hear his name again. But Matt Capps, acquired from Washington, seems the equal of Nathan, and he is several years younger. The real coup, however, was then adding Brian Fuentes (why did the Angels let him go? Why did the White Sox miss him on waivers?). Not only is he an experienced closer who is lefthanded and can shut teams down in the 8th inning, his presence freed up Matt Guerrier and Jesse Crain for the 7th or earlier, where they seem to be more effective. Throw in Jose Mijares, who can be unhittable for lefthanded batters when he isn’t wild and Gardy has all the pieces for the relief ballet he likes to dance.

There is a certain sameness to Blackburn, Baker and Slowey, all young righthanded middle-of-the-rotation type guys, who can be alternately lights-out or bombed. I love watching them when they’re on, but whether we’ll ever see more than a 15-win year from any of them is an open question. Carl Pavano was the Twins’ ace this year, and despite some subpar outings in September, he is the best bet to hold the Yankees to two runs when he pitches. Whether that will produce a win is the issue. Liriano has a devastating slider, and when he can spot his fastball he is a strikeout machine. He is, however, erratic and more prone to emotion than the righthanders, and I don’t like his chances against C.C.Sabathia, even at home. Brian Duensing has done remarkably well, given his lack of pedigree and experience, and if he continues to improve can be a cornerstone for years to come. You will note that these names add up to six, and since a team generally needs only five starters, that means one will sit out – for the ALDS it seems to be Baker, an erstwhile Opening Day starter. Also in the wings is Glen Perkins, who has been an effective starter in the past and is still young. Does that mean the Twins needn’t resign free agent Pavano, or should trade a starter for a more pressing need, like an outfielder, or backup catcher? Given the fact that someone is always hurt, it may be more necessity than luxury to have someone in reserve. But if Pavano demands a long-term deal, or someone offers something good for Perkins, I would let them go.

Defense has been a hallmark of the Twins in recent years, and for most of this year the Twins had a ridiculously low number of errors. All the same, there are no obvious Gold Glovers on the team (if Mauer wins one, it will be for his hitting), Cuddyer was merely an adequate replacement for Morneau at first, Young is well below average in leftfield and Kubel is competent but not fast in right. If Morneau comes back next year, Cuddyer can return to right, which leaves left as the problem spot. If the Twins can add one player for next year, it should be a speedy leftfielder, who can occasionally spell Span in center. That would allow Young and Kubel to form a powerful left-right DH tandem and allow them to give Span, Cuddyer and even Morneau the occasional rest they could have used this season.

The infield epitomizes the Twins’ offensive balance, now that rookie Danny Valencia is a fixture at third (what an arm!). Hudson, Valencia and, to a lesser degree, Hardy, Punto and Casilla all contributed big games without overpowering anyone. What will become of the middle infield next year? I was frankly surprised that both Hudson and Hardy worked out as well as they did, but I’m not sure Hardy did enough to lay any longterm claim to the shortstop position. If Casilla were slightly less flashy, I would take him over Hardy. I would certainly rather have him at bat in the 9th inning with the game on the line. Trevor Plouffe seems to be rising through the minors. If he is the answer at short, then Casilla can play second, with Punto in his usual super-reserve role and the Twins would have an exciting, affordable infield for several years to come.

I’ve addressed outfield depth above – Jason Repko has been a fine fill-in, but is offensively challenged – which leaves the gap at backup catcher. Joe Mauer, for one reason or another, is unlikely to catch more than 110 games a year, so this is a serious need. Drew Butera is good behind the plate, but a black hole at it. I was counting on Jose Morales to be an upgrade on Mike Redmond, but for some reason Gardy finds him defensively deficient. It may be easier to improve Morales’s skills than to find anyone better via trade.

Home run power raises some interesting points about Delmon Young. He doubled his output from last year, and his 21 homers placed him behind only Jim Thome’s 25 on the Twins’ meager list. (The Blue Jays, by contrast, had seven players with 21 or more homers, led by Jose Bautista’s 54!) The Twins thought they were getting a power hitter when they traded Matt Garza to the Rays for Young, but it has taken three years for even his potential to show up. There is no chance the Twins will find another home-run hitter for next year. Valencia showed some power and could help. Morneau’s return to health would provide the biggest boost, and if Mauer could add just a tad more oomph, his warning-track drives would bring back his numbers of a year ago. If Bautista can go from 18 to 54 in one year, maybe the Twins’ best hope is for a similarly miraculous burst from, say, Cuddyer. What I wanted to say about Delmon Young, though, is this: for two years, we thought the Rays had gotten the better of that trade: Jason Bartlett has lasted much longer at shortstop in Tampa than Brendan Harris has in Minnesota, but they were the sideshow. Garza’s success on the mound, including in postseason, underlined Young’s underachievements before this year. But as we’ve just seen, the Twins have much greater need for power hitting than for pitching. Garza, this year, is not markedly better than any of the six Twins starters; they simply don’t need him. Young, on the other hand, led the Twins in rbi’s and is an immensely better hitter than anyone the Twins could replace him with in the outfield – see, e.g., Repko, above. So this trade should probably eventually go down as a win-win for both sides.

Finally, the above analysis omits this year’s principal DH, Jim Thome. Will he return? At one point he said, or implied, that if the Twins win the World Series, he could go out on top. Let’s hope that happens.

Chicago 19 – Detroit 14

/0 Comments/in /by

The NFL refs wasted no time getting into the national debate about bad calls (baseball) and stupid rules (golf) in sports seen on TV. The long-suffering Detroit Lions seemed to have pulled off a miraculous upset when their backup quarterback threw a Hail Mary in the game’s final minute that Calvin Johnson grabbed in the end zone. After wresting the ball from a defender, Johnson twisted and took three steps before falling to the ground, holding the ball outstretched in one hand. When the ball hit the ground, it squirted free. Johnson jumped up, celebrated with his amazed teammates and ran to the sidelines. But oops!, the play was reviewed by the officials, who ruled the pass incomplete because by not holding onto the ball when he hit the ground, Johnson had not completed “the process” of catching the pass!
The ruling was defensible under the rules, and I even felt queasy when I saw the play live, fearing such a decision. But what was more evident was the patent stupidity of the rule itself. As the TV announcers said, there was no question that Johnson “caught” the ball. He had total control of it, and was gripping it after the catch in one hand, in clear view of all. Moreover, he took three steps after the catch. If he hadn’t fallen, he could have taken one step less and tossed the ball to the ref and the touchdown would have stood. Why should the fact that he subsequently fell down change the outcome?
Compare this with the applicable rule when a runner reaches the end zone. All he has to do is control the ball while it penetrates the invisible goal line. If he drops it or it is knocked from his grasp one inch later, it is still a touchdown. If he lands on the ground as Johnson did and the ball comes loose, it is still a touchdown. Why is a receiver treated differently than a runner? In a non-end-zone situation, a runner also benefits from the rule that “the ground can’t cause a fumble,” yet that is exactly what happened with the pass to Johnson. If the same scenario had unfolded outside the end zone – i.e., if Johnson had caught the pass, twisted away from the defender, taken three steps while controlling the ball – and had fumbled after being hit, would the officials have called it an incomplete pass? No – that’s another inconsistency.
The announcers pleaded for an exception to the rule. That, of course, is not a viable solution. What makes more sense, instead, is simply changing the rule. If a receiver takes two steps after controlling the football – a judgment similar to the one routinely made when a receiver goes out of bounds – then the ground will no more cause an incompletion than it would a runner’s fumble.

Soccer: The Confounding Game

/0 Comments/in /by

Every four years I avidly follow international soccer, a/k/a the World Cup, and conclude with a desire to watch the sport again…in four more years. While I am watching I pick a team to root for – generally based on hairstyles and uniform colors, thus putting Germany at the bottom of the pack – and spend the rest of my time counting the faults of the game itself, which were on full display this year.
Let’s start, and in a way end, with the refereeing. To my mind, the smaller the role played by the referee, the better the sport. This is the cardinal problem with basketball. With physical contact on every play, what is or is not a foul is totally in the domain of the referee, who can, and often does, decide a close game by either blowing his whistle or swallowing it. Was it a charge or a blocking foul? Was the shot cleanly blocked, or did the defender hit the shooter’s hand, or body? What is traveling? Carrying the ball? Is the game called the same for the star and the rookie? For the home team and the visitors? The role of the referee in making all these subjective calls is simply too great.
At least, however, the court is small and the three refs used in the NBA can see everything. The soccer field is much bigger, and one referee covers the entire pitch and 22 players, not 10. Yes, he has two assistants, but they are on the sidelines and don’t seem to have equal authority or voice. So the chances of a missed call, as with England’s non-goal and the U.S.’s phantom foul, are greater.
The bigger problem, though, is the relative importance of the referee’s decisions. A foul call in basketball can result in two, or on rare occasions three points; and in maybe half those situations two points would have been scored anyway, absent the foul. So one referee’s decision will affect approximately one percent of a team’s scoring. In soccer, in contrast, a foul call in the penalty area may result in 100% of the scoring for the entire game! A foul outside the penalty area will still result in a “set piece,” and an inordinate number of goals in the World Cup came from such set pieces.
With the stakes involved in creating a foul so high – and this is not even counting the unrelated value of getting an opponent yellow-carded or red-carded – players uniformly resort to the most extreme play-acting whenever a potential foul occurs. The sight of a player writhing on the ground in agony, only to continue running full speed a moment later is a universally recognized blot on the game; but again it is caused by the undue impact a referee’s foul call can have.
Hockey, the clearest comparative sport, has a penalty shot, too; but it is awarded only when an offensive player has a clean breakaway and is unfairly deprived of a good opportunity to score. This is occasionally the case with a soccer penalty kick, but more often the player fouled was not about to score. Moreover, a penalty kick is far easier to convert than a penalty shot in hockey and almost always far easier than the chance the fouled player would have had without the foul.
A goal that is scored off the “run-of-play” – i.e., after a series of passes such as the Argentines and the Spaniards excelled at – is indeed a beautiful affair, worth celebrating. But it is worth no more in determining the victor than a goal off a corner kick, a set piece or a penalty kick, and those goals require no more than one lucky strike or a head in the right place. I don’t know the statistics, but it seemed, especiallly in the opening round, that as many goals were scored off set pieces as in the run of play; and whenever that happened you had little confidence that the better team was being rewarded.
The foregoing issues all come down to the difficulty of scoring through regular play in soccer. This is also a problem in itself: a 0-0 or 1-0 game may have moments of tension, but Americans in general and myself in particular prefer to see more beautiful plays, more celebrations, more scores, even more great saves. There is also the problem that once a team gets ahead, it can simply play defense the rest of the way, which takes the flow out of the game. Worse, if a team goes ahead by two goals, the game is basically over. The great comebacks that occasionally enliven a baseball, basketball or football game are exceedingly rare in soccer.
None of these problems seem to matter to the international soccer fan. Referees’ bad calls are considered an integral part of the game. Ditto for the fact that the better team may lose on a penalty kick or set piece (Switzerland beat eventual champion Spain in the opening game, despite being outshot about 20-1, and the world didn’t end). And a nil-nil draw is perfectly acceptable.
If someone were to ask for my suggestion, however, I would improve the game simultaneously in two ways by modifying (not eliminating) the offsides rule. First, the offsides call stops the game dead in its tracks. Second, it encourages defenses to stop attacks not by defending the opponent but by tricking him into being offsides. But most significantly, it interferes with many of the best scoring opportunities, exciting plays that would make the game more vibrant. And more goals, in addition to being more fun to watch, would diminish the exaggerated importance of the referee’s whistle and, one hopes, the players’ whining and acting.
One last related complaint: removing a player from the game for two yellow-card infractions also sets soccer apart from American sports. Given the dubiousness of many yellow-card calls (see referee’s problem, above), it can be a wholly undeserved penalty. But in no case is there justification for changing the entire nature of the contest as a result, which is what happens if one team has fewer players the rest of the match. In basketball a player is ejected for accumulating excessive fouls, and in baseball a player may be thrown out of the game for arguing,but in both cases he is replaced by a substitute. In hockey, again the closest comparison, a penalized team must play shorthanded, but in general for only two minutes.
In short, someone versed in the experience of American sport (and I haven’t even gotten into instant replay), could make some tweaks to the rules of soccer and turn it into a truly beautiful game. But I don’t think the world is looking to America for leadership in this field, alas.

Instant Replay

/0 Comments/in /by

Very shortly after the Armando Gallarage/Jim Joyce unperfect-game situation occurred, I settled on the instant-replay solution that is being more and more talked about, and it is simply this:
Give each manager one challenge flag, but one flag only, that he can use at any point in the game for anything other than a ball-and-strike call.
First, challenges will be rare. Unlike football, with its fumbles, trapped passes and out-of-bounds steps, baseball has very few close calls that require a second look.
Second, if the manager is limited to one challenge, he will not use it unless it is at a significant juncture, and he will want to save it for the end of the game, when a call may be decisive.
Third, it will not delay the game. The rules should require that a challenge flag may only be thrown from the dugout before the manager has left it. Thus, it will replace what would otherwise often be a lengthy argument that is a real game-delayer. Similarly, the rules should state that it is an automatic ejection if a manager leaves the dugout after throwing the flag.
Fourth, there need be no confusion, as there is in the NFL, over what calls can be challenged. Any call that a replay shows to be clearly erroneous may be reversed. Through experience, a smart manager will learn which those calls are.
Fifth, human error will remain in the game. Old-timers who say, we’ve always lived with bad calls, they’re a part of the game, need not feel deprived. If the umpires make 100 calls in a game, only two can be challenged, leaving 98 possible errors to live with, not even counting balls and strikes.
So much for the objections. What is the upside? Quite simply, there is less chance that a game will be decided on an obviously wrong call, thus serving the demands of competitive justice. For the umpire, there is less chance that his name will live in infamy, a la Don Denkinger or Jim Joyce. For the fan, there is one more chance to second-guess the manager: should he have used his challenge there or not?
Baseball changes, not always for the better – look at the DH, interleague play, etc. Adding one instant reply would be relatively modest. I am ready, in fact, for something more drastic: a laser-defined strike zone. Why put up with umpires’ wildly inconsistent strike zones? Why stand for your favorite hitter’s being called out on a pitch six inches off the plate? Why should Joe Mauer’s strike zone be accorded more weight than a rookie’s? Look at how tennis has adapted, and survived, with “hawkeye” replacing linespersons on the service line. The game of baseball would be just as good, with a lot less whining, if we heard a beep, or saw a light go on, whenever the pitch passed through the strike zone. I don’t think the umpires union is quite ready, however.

The Save – Part 2

/0 Comments/in /by

After the Twins blew a four-run lead in the ninth inning Saturday night against the lowly Brewers, Star Tribune columnist Patrick Reusse astutely criticised Twins skipper Ron Gardenhire for managing for statistics. By that Reusse meant that if the lead had been three runs, Gardy would have brought in his closer, Jon Rauch, to pitch the 9th; but because the lead was four – and it was therefore not a “save” situation – he used the less dependable Ron Mahay, until Mahay had loaded the bases and the Twins turned to Rauch, unfortunately too late.
In any other situation, Gardenhire would bring in whichever reliever was best positioned to get the job done. Since the job here was closing the game, and Rauch is his closer and hadn’t pitched recently, Rauch was the logical choice. Except for the mindset that Gardenhire, like many other managers, won’t use his closer unless there is a save to be gained. But designating a three-run margin as a save situation is an arbitrary stat-driven determination – one that, like the closer role, didn’t exist for much of baseball history. In every other aspect I can think of, the game is played to win, and the statistics are compiled after the fact, and fall where they may. This is the only instance I can think of where an arbitrary statistic itself determines how the game is played.

Twins-Yankees

/0 Comments/in /by

The air went out of the Twins tonight – and I hope it was just for one game, not the whole season – when that least-admirable of Yankees, Alex Rodriguez, turned a painfully wrought 4-3 Twins edge into a 7-4 Yankee pounding with one swing of his bat. One must question why Ron Gardenhire brought in Matt Guerrier to face A-Rod with the bases loaded, even though Rodriguez was batting .750 against Guerrier, including three homers in only eight times at bat. But then we all know that Gardy is strictly a by-the-(obsolete)book manager, who plays the right-against-right “percentages,” just as Yankee manager Joe Girardi brought in lefthander Damaso Marte the same inning to face Joe Mauer, even though Mauer’s average against lefties is about 150 points higher than against righties. Mauer proceeded to drive in the tying run, then left Justin Morneau drove in Mauer to give the Twins their shortlived lead.
I feel sorry for Scott Baker, who left the game with the lead but will have the loss on his record, but even worse for Brian Duensing, my current favorite Twin pitcher. Brought in to relieve Baker with men on second and third and no outs, Duensing retired the dangerous Brett Gardner on a popup, then was told to intentionally walk Mark Texeira before giving way to Guerrier. Of the four runs Guerrier surrendered on the Rodriguez slam, two go against Baker’s ledger and Duensing is charged with one run in one-third inning pitched, seriously damaging his ERA even though he did absolutely everything asked of him.
The Twins’ TV announcers were noticeably deflated, and the players seemed to merely go through the motions in their final two at-bats. The damn Yankees, whom the Twins haven’t defeated in years, had done it again, and what is more depressing is that Baker pitched a good game, Kubel broke out of his slump, and the two big men, Mauer and Morneau, came through with big at bats. And still, it wasn’t enough.

O-Dog Paws the Ground

/0 Comments/in /by

A favorite moment from my first visit to the new Target Field came on Orlando Hudson’s first at-bat. I had heard he was loquacious, ebullient, effervescent and all the rest, but I had never witnessed him in person. He gave a love-pat to umpire Tim Tschida, then rubbed his hand over the head of Red Sox catcher Victor Martinez. Next, he methodically rubbed out every trace of the chalk line delineating the back of the batter’s box, which to that point hadn’t been touched. Finally, he brazenly planted his back foot well behind the line that was now missing its chalk. I don’t think Tschida said a word.
My other impression was a reaction against the common refrain that there isn’t a bad seat in the house. I can name one: Section 123, Row 27, Seat 11, the ticket I purchased, albeit for only $20, on the street. The problem is the overhang from the upper deck, which might be nice on a rainy day, but otherwise means you’re not sitting in the sun, you can’t follow the flight of fly balls, you can’t see the main scoreboard or the downtown skyline. There is a TV monitor, but at a day game it is backlit and hard to see. I also found I had to twist my body to watch home plate, a problem at the Metrodome that I thought would be ameliorated in the baseball-only park. The lines at concession stands were horrendous, largely due to inexperienced servers, and the hot dogs weren’t very good; but I’m hoping those problems can be rectified. As for the seats, I will try something different next time.

Twins Preview

/0 Comments/in /by

Before the first pitch of the 2010 season, I should make my predictions. First, however, is a resolution: to be patient. Last year was not the first time that I gave up on the Twins in midseason, only to have them ultimately win their division. I die a little with each loss, not accepting that 72 losses would still constitute a successful season. By the same token, I may despair of a player who is hitting .200 in April, only to find that he is among the league leaders by October. So, a hasty judge this year I will not be.

The Twins, remarkably, open the season with no rookies; so we should have a decent idea of what to expect. Except there are two areas of Unknown: 1., the middle infield, and 2. the closer. At short and second the Twins have brought in J.J. Hardy and Orlando Hudson. Both are Gold Glove winners and former All-Stars, which augurs well. But both fell out of favor with their teams last year, which is why they are Twins now. It would be nice, but wholly unlikely, for both to regain their All-Star form. More likely, one will have been replaced in the lineup before the season is over. The good news is that the players who would otherwise have started at these positions – Punto, Casilla, Tolbert – will still available. Third base is a perpetual issue, but I am content to have Punto and Harris to contend there, with Danny Valencia in the minors awaiting his turn. Both players will make the most of their opportunities, and neither is a sulker. Justin Morneau makes me nervous, only because his spring slump mirrors the late-season slumps he has produced the last two years. He can carry the team when he is hot, but I fear that more and more pitchers are learning his weak spot.

Young, Span and Cuddyer are set in the outfield, the only question being how much DH Kubel will sub in, and Mauer will catch. He isn’t the greatest clutch hitter I’ve seen, but it’s hard to argue with a .350 average and three batting titles in four years.

Which brings us to the closer. I haven’t been a Joe Nathan fan, although it’s also hard to argue with his record. For me, a dominant closer is Goose Gossage or Mariano Rivera, guys who give you no chance. Nathan let runners get on base, and his demeanor on the mound, the heavy breathing, made me nervous. But everyone knew his place, which let Gardy manage by the book, the way he likes. For now, Jon Rauch has been designated the closer. Few expected this, and fewer expect it to last all season. That’s okay, as many teams change, or find, closers in midstream. Two years ago, Jose Mijares looked like he had the stuff to be the closer of the future, but last year he couldn’t throw strikes to the first batter, which is a problem for a closer. Three years ago, Pat Neshek looked like a future closer. How well he comes back from arm surgery is still a question, but he has the temperament to close, which Mijares probably doesn’t, yet. Last year the best option looked like Francisco Liriano, who was devastating for two or three innings of each start, and then faltered. But he doesn’t want it, and to be a closer you’ve got to want it. Matt Guerrier has been mentioned, but to me he’s just steady, not dominant enough, and he tends to give up the long ball. My guess is that, unless Liriano flops as a starter and sees the light or Neshek comes back strong, the Twins will be in the market in July for one more reliever.

Will they win? If Baker, Slowey and Blackburn continue to improve and Pavano holds up, I’d say they should. Will I throw in the towel if they are not in first place in August? No. I promise.